Humanities desk
< February 16	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 18 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

February 17

Honorary ambassadors

This question arises from a seemingly never-resolvable discussion about whether or not Sidney Poitier is entitled to be known as "Sir Sidney" post his 1974 knighthood.

I was reasonably persuaded that he was an American citizen from birth and has never held Bahamian, British or any other citizenship. Case closed. He's plain "Sidney Poitier KBE". That was until I reminded myself that he was the Bahamian Ambassador to Japan for 10 years 1997-2007, and Bahamian Ambassador to UNESCO for five years 2002-2007. As I said on Poitier's talk page, I know that non-citizens are sometimes appointed honorary consuls, but I've never heard of a non-citizen being appointed a country's ambassador. If so, why wouldn't he have been referred to as "honorary ambassador", in line with the "honorary consul" designation?

I checked at Ambassador, and it seems the only instance of an "honorary ambassador" is in the case of Kosovo.

So, are there any other cases of a non-citizen being appointed a country's ambassador to another country? Or even an honorary ambassador?

Also, I have searched fruitlessly for the official announcement of his (honorary) knighthood, so if anyone here can help in tracking that down, I'd be most grateful. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:09, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. User:IRN-Dumas: This query will no doubt interest you. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 03:24, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you assuming he wasn't a Bahamian Citizen? The current position is that anyone "Born outside of The Bahamas to a married Bahamian male who was not born outside The Bahamas" is automatically given Bahamian Citizenship. DuncanHill (talk) 00:22, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but he was born when The Bahamas was a British Crown Colony, and British law on dual citizenship then applied. It has since become an independent nation with its own laws, but Poitier's talk page persuaded me that there's no evidence he's ever become a Bahamian citizen, despite growing up there. Worth a read. If you know any different, please advise. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:26, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) The National Archives, in a reference used in the Poitier article describe him as a joint US-Bahamian citizen. DuncanHill (talk) 00:28, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I already queried that very point on Poitier's talk page, because that same page also describes his knighthood as "honorary". Go figure. The discussion is in about three parts, the most recent part being at the bottom. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:33, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the claim in that thread about Britain not allowing dual nationality until 1981 is right. I'm pretty sure it was allowed in the British Nationality Act 1948, and I'm not at all certain that it was prohibited before. DuncanHill (talk) 00:44, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The 1914 Act, which seems to be the one in force at the time of his birth, would make him a British subject by descent and only seems to deprive someone of British subject status if they were naturalised as a citizen of a foreign state. Poitier was not naturalised as a USian citizen. DuncanHill (talk) 00:59, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Independent, reporting his appointment as ambassador to Japan has him a dual Bahamian-US citizen, as does the Encyclopaedia Britannica. DuncanHill (talk) 01:06, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So, maybe the situation is that when he was knighted in 1974, he was not a British subject, hence the honorary award; but at some later time he adopted Bahamian citizenship (which didn't exist before 1981), meaning he would now be entitled to "Sir Sidney" if he ever bothered to apply to have the award converted from honorary to substantive, but since he never uses it, he hasn't bothered to do that. Can anyone confirm that? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 04:37, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bahamian citizenship existed from 10 July 1973, in the words of the Bahamas Independence Act 1973 "Except as provided by section 3 of this Act, any person who immediately before the appointed day is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies shall on that day cease to be such a citizen if he becomes on that day a citizen of the Bahamas". DuncanHill (talk) 14:18, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, my bad about the date of citizenship. But there are 2 points here: (a) the evidence I've seen suggests he was a natural-born US citizen but did not have British citizenship; therefore (b) the above law simply does not apply to him. He couldn't have converted British to Bahamian, because he never had British in the first place. If he were a Bahamian citizen in 1974, why was his knighthood honorary? The talk page gives an assertion that this has been checked with the relevant UK authorities, who confirmed the knighthood was indeed honorary. That's not good enough for a source for an article, but we can certainly take it on board in our discussions. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:51, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any basis to assume that he never had British nationality. Under the 1914 Act he would have had it or been entitled to it, as he never seems to have been naturalised as a citizen of a foreign country. What we need is the gazetting of his KBE. I cannot find this in the London Gazette. DuncanHill (talk) 22:04, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have also had zero luck with the Gazette or any other official announcement. But again, if he were British before 1973, then he would have become Bahamian, and he would have been awarded a substantive knighthood. But he wasn't. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:39, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find him getting a KBE in The Times reports of New Year and Birthday honours, and they are usually very complete. Indeed, they don't seem to mention the KBE in reporting him until the 1990s. DuncanHill (talk) 23:43, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:JackofOz User:DuncanHill: The 1914 Act only allowed dual citizenship up to the age of 21, so unless he renounced his US citizenship he would not have automatically received Bahamanian citizenship. The Bahamas also does not allow for dual citizenship past the age of 21.

this is the best record I could find for his KBE. It clearly states that it was honorary, and does not mention him having Bahamanian citizenship.

As to the question of him being ambassador, I haven't seen any indication that holding bahamanian citizenship is a requirement to be an ambassador. It is entirely possible, particularly with a small country like the Bahamas, that his citizenship was not of great concern. I don't have a good answer to that point, though.IRN-Dumas (talk) 00:48, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder what "Date: 1974 Jan 01 - 1975 Jan 10" means. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:50, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The constitution would seem to make him a Bahamian citizen if he was "on 9th July 1973 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies" and his father was or would have if alive, become a Bahamian citizen by birth. (Which would have happened if he was born on the crown colony and was a UK citizen) See [1]. The suggestion he was not a British subject would seem to preclude that. But is the only reason he is not believed to have been a British citizen because suggest the KBE is honorary? As the somewhat recent Australian political controversy has shown, it isn't uncommon that people are citizens of some other country despite not doing anything about it, and maybe not even knowing about. Nil Einne (talk) 06:35, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First to be clear, this is in no way a comment on Sidney Poitier's appointment since he clearly had a strong connection to the Bahamas. Anyway people with no real connection the the country can be appointed ambassador although most or all of them are given citizenship first. And it happens a fair amount with Caribbean countries although I think it may be more common now than in 1997. Funnily enough I just watched this video yesterday which describes the controversial and almost definitely corrupt practice [2] [3] [4].

While often these seem to be to some UN body or maybe an ambassador-at-large, with the obvious advantage that you don't have to convince some country to accept them and the UN bodies just accept them; one of the examples given there is Ali Reza Monfared who is said to have nominally became Dominica's ambassador to Malaysia. Although to be clear, I'm not saying Ali Reza Monfared's appointment was almost definitely corrupt, rather the practice is at least some times. It is possible some of these people are just using the term loosely and are really honorary consuls or ambassador-at-large or something. (There was initially mention of this.) But I don't believe there's such a thing as an honorary consul to UNESCO (as opposed to an honorary ambassador of UNESCO) etc. And I'm sure some country has convinced some other country to accept some such ambassador.

As mentioned in that story, and also [5], despite these people nominally representing the country in some fashion, evidently the people they represent aren't entitled to know who they all are. I guess this may make sense if the person is an intelligence agent working in the appointed countries signals base, provided they or their spouse doesn't drive on the wrong side of the road and kill someone. But I think it's clear most of these case aren't like that. Also to be clear, and the DW article mentions this, the practice isn't just with Caribbean countries but other generally poorer countries with high levels of corruption. [6] may be of interest.

For an alternative view, see [7]. Maybe also [8] [9] [10] [11] [12].

Nil Einne (talk) 06:18, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Queue after 1911

Were there any significant communities in China that retained the Queue (hairstyle) after 1911? Also when did the queue fell out of favor in the Chinese American community? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.209.14.47 (talk) 01:41, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your second question: Chinese men in the United States appear to have started removing their queues shortly after the Xinhai Revolution in 1911. The Library of Congress has an article published by The San Francisco Call on June 18, 1911, ("The Passing of the Queue") writing about how "(...) in this hour, the queues are being sheared off by thousands". Better references probably can be found. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:19, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"The End of the Queue: Hair as Symbol in Chinese History" by Michael R. Godley (China Heritage Quarterly) might interest you. It mentions resistance, hiding hair under caps, and notable people who refused to cut off their queue such as Zhang Xun and Gu Hongming, "even during the New Culture Movement". ---Sluzzelin talk 19:33, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You could look at photographs of opium dens in United States, taken after 1911.
Sleigh (talk) 22:53, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

brainwashed by money

Is there a name or recognized general characteristics of a condition where someone is more respectful of or impressed by money than situational logic supports? I don't mean greed, which implies that the person is trying to get the money for themselves. I mean someone who thinks that since e.g. Donald Trump (or a typical tech tycoon etc.) is rich, they must be smart and worth listening to. I'm sure we've all seen this. Such people are typically not greedy or dishonest or stupid, but I might consider them slightly gullible. It leads to weird consequences sometimes. Thanks. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:7AC0 (talk) 04:57, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Greek-derived term for this would be "plutolatry", but that word seems to be mainly found in dictionaries. Adam Smith has a whole discussion "Of the corruption of our moral sentiments, which is occasioned by this disposition to admire the rich and the great, and to despise or neglect persons of poor and mean condition"... -- AnonMoos (talk) 05:06, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds something like the suckers VALS suckers call "Strivers". InedibleHulk (talk) 05:50, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The whole Prosperity theology thing might be tangentially relevant. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.205.58.107 (talk) 06:00, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This reminds me of the ironic aphorism "if you are so smart, why aren't you rich?" which posits the assumption that the only rational thing to do with intelligence is to accumulate flamboyant wealth. Coincidentally, every single productive Wikipedia editor dissents from this truism. Take a look at this Technology Review article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:26, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bah! Humbug! If the authors of the reviewed article were smart, they would spend their time amassing wealth instead of simulating a bunch of other losers. Seriously, if you look at their model it should be obvious that chance will play a dominant role; no simulation needed: the actors wait entirely passively until a "lucky event" comes their way. --Lambiam 13:36, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah the model is slightly unrealistic in that some people spend more time than others chasing such opportunities rather than just getting on with whatever else they do, but statistically it works out, and such results about preferential attachment processes are well known in math. I wonder why that report is even news. It's studied in economics too, e.g. by W. Brian Arthur. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:7AC0 (talk) 17:03, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

People at the bottom rarely get a break, and when hit by bad luck, the blow tends to land much more severely than on those who can afford safety cushioning. None of this is accounted for in the model. IMO "slightly" unrealistic is an understatement. Was this the first model the authors tried, or did they keep tweaking it until they got a comfortable statistical fit? It is more convincing when a model also predicts something new (not already known or trivially expected), which then also is observed in real life. --Lambiam 17:54, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt they had to tweak very much, since power law distributions emerge from all kinds of processes. The Technology Review article doesn't seem to say anything remotely newsworthy. I guess I should look at the arxiv preprint. It certainly sounds possible to adjust for the stuff you describe but I doubt it would change the result.

Regarding my original question: "plutolatry" is close to what I was looking for, and the Adam Smith chapter looks interesting. Prosperity theology is kind of a different thing. I think my description missed the mark I was aiming at: it's less about admiration of rich people, than excessive respect for money and well-financed institutions per se, and treating a lack of respect for such things as a kind of deviance. E.g. I make a decent living as a techie and I like what I do and want to keep doing it, but (by the logic I'm describing), that makes me a degenerate since I'm not trying to become an executive and play golf with Jeff Bezos, if that makes any sense. Thanks. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:7AC0 (talk) 18:55, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Class discrimination" do anything for you? InedibleHulk (talk) 03:30, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, the concept is important but it's not what I'm after here. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:7AC0 (talk) 05:06, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Just realized you're the same number asking about an electric house. Now I've failed you twice! Four times, technically. I'm actually trying with this question, though, if that's any consolation. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:48, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Heh no prob, the VALS article was interesting and maybe some parts of it fit. Iron law of bureaucracy and the related iron law of oligarchy are also relevant. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:7AC0 (talk) 07:12, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In Westeros, the Ironborn are often shat upon by those who'd pay the "gold price" for something, rather than the "iron price". Theon Greyjoy's chapters of A Song of Ice and Fire get pretty deep into the synonyms for the system. Just a story, but some pieces fit. I'll see if Iron Maiden has anything in the back catalogue resembling a reverse "Eat the Rich" vibe. If not them, Tool. After I look into these strange new laws, of course, thanks! You ever think about working here? You could be a natural regular. Maybe you already are, and I just don't know it yet. Anyway, we'll get to the bottom of this, one crossed wire at a time! InedibleHulk (talk) 08:08, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Um ok, I haven't watched that show so don't recognize any of the names. Separately, it's not lost on me that we may be heading into a US presidential election between a 70-something New York billionaire ex-Republican who became a Democrat, and a 70-something New York billionaire ex-Democrat who became a Republican. Is that Kang and Kodos twirling towards freedom? I have no idea why people fall for this stuff. That's part of what I'm trying to figure out. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:7AC0 (talk) 19:53, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I meant the books, but a miss is a miss is a miss. Nothing jumping out at me from Iron Maiden, Iron Bank or Iron Curtain, but maybe "disproportioned malcontents" means something, somewhat. I wouldn't want a poor person handling trillion dollar accounts, all of a sudden, especially an impetuous young urchin or waif. Old folks are smart to the artificial brand rivalry angle, they've played WWE SmackDown! vs Raw in some form before. Controversy creates cash, and all cash trickles up to one warrior nation. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:50, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I may be missing some cultural hints there, but is there an inherent problem with being 70-something? HiLo48 (talk) 23:57, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of the presidency, the fear is impending death. People want to elect candidates that will live out their terms in good health. -Nunh-huh 00:19, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A 70 year old man in the US can be expected to live to 85.3. See [13] As his current age goes up, so does his life expectancy. Seems fine to me. But I guess facts and logic don't play a big part in politics. HiLo48 (talk) 01:32, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Life expectancy is only one measure though. By 70 [14] a US man in 2016 has a death probability of 0.023122, in other words a ~2.3% chance if dying in 1 year. By 78, it's up to 0.047720 or ~4.8% i.e. nearly 1 in 20. (A term is 4 years, but the Twenty-second Amendment to the United States Constitution and modern party politics seems to mean that especially those who are only likely to support one candidate expect and assume they are choosing someone for 8 years if they haven't yet been president.)

At 70, a US man has as 13.27% probability of dying within 5 years and 30.85% probability if dying with 10 years. [15] Yes, different source, but the data roughly tallies with the government ones for 1 year so they're likely good enough for our purposes. And yes 10 years is a little long, I'm sure you could calculate or find 8 year probabilities if you really want, IMO it's enough to give a decent idea anyway.

Of course we're talking averages here, so a wealthy US man with no known significant diseases may have a a lower probability. Still, the average is quite different from a 50 year old at 0.005007 for 1 year, 2.98% for 5 years and 7.35% for 10 years. The 8 year probability is probably not far off the 78 year old 1 year probability.

I'd also note that someone doesn't have to die to be sufficiently incapacitated to be unable to serve as president. There is of course the case of Woodrow Wilson#Ratification debate and incapacity, which probably wouldn't happen in the modern era. (There are persistent questions about Ronald Reagan but as our article says, medical professionals who worked with him say they do not believe there was anything [16].)

Whether any of this should factor into someone's voting, I make no comment.

Nil Einne (talk) 13:39, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sycophancy is probably a more general example of what you are talking about, although not specifically related to wealth. The Class sketch, and the concept of Kiss up kick down may also be relevent. Iapetus (talk) 10:16, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Liberal MPs Canada against same-sex marriage and abortion

So far I know that Dan McTeague was anti-same-sex marriage and anti-abortion politician who was a Liberal Party MP in the federal government. Who else was a Liberal Party MP that was against same-sex marriage and abortion? Donmust90 (talk) 17:35, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Those supposed facts are not in the article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:42, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They are very easy to document with about 2 seconds of web search[17][18] and might be worth adding to the article since the notability is there. This mentions Gar Knutson and Joe Volpe as also being affected. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:7AC0 (talk) 19:02, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Karygiannis and John McKay also fit that description, with McKay still a sitting MP. Bkissin (talk) 20:23, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]